United States District Court, D. Idaho
MELALEUCA, INC., an Idaho corporation, and MELALEUCA CHINA WELLNESS PRODUCTS CO., LTD. a wholly-owned subsidiary of Melaleuca, Inc., Plaintiff,
KOT NAM SHAN, an individual, and SHAKLEE CORP., a Delaware corporation, Defendants.
MEMORANDUM DECISION AND ORDER
C. NYE, U.S. DISTRICT COURT JUDGE.
before the Court is Defendant Shaklee Corp.'s
(“Shaklee”) Motion to Stay. Dkt. 80. Having
reviewed the record and briefs, the Court finds that the
facts and legal arguments are adequately presented.
Accordingly, in the interest of avoiding further delay, and
because the Court finds that the decisional process would not
be significantly aided by oral argument, the Court will
address the motion without oral argument. Dist. Idaho Loc.
Civ. R. 7.1(d)(2)(ii). For the reasons outlined below, the
Court finds good cause to GRANT Shaklee's Motion to Stay.
factual background underlying this dispute is set forth in
the Court's previous Decision. Dkt. 74., at 2-8. The
Court incorporates that background in full by reference.
Court's previous decision, it dismissed all of Plaintiffs
Melaleuca Inc. and Melaleuca (China) Wellness Products Co.,
Ltd.'s (hereinafter referred to collectively as
“Melaleuca”) claims against Defendant Kot Nam
Shan (“Kot”) on forum non conveniens grounds.
Dkt. 74, at 21. In light of those dismissals, the Court noted
that it “still has before it two claims for tortious
interference of contract Plaintiffs asserted against Shaklee.
At this juncture, it may be appropriate to stay these claims.
However, the Court will not take such action sua
sponte.” Id. On May 17, 2018, Shaklee filed a
Motion to Stay the remaining claims pending the resolution of
Melaleuca's claims against Kot in China.
Court “has broad discretion to stay proceedings as an
incident to its power to control its own docket.”
Clinton v. Jones, 520 U.S. 681, 706-707 (1997)
(citing Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254
(1936)). “A trial court may, with propriety, find it is
efficient for its own docket and the fairest course for the
parties to enter a stay of an action before it, pending
resolution of independent proceedings which bear upon the
case.” Leyva v. Certified Grocers of Cal.,
Ltd., 593 F.2d 857, 863-64 (9th Cir. 1979). Determining
whether to grant a motion to stay “calls for the
exercise of judgment, which must weigh competing interests
and maintain an even balance.” Landis, 299
U.S. at 254-55. “When considering a motion to stay, the
district court should consider three factors: (1) the
potential prejudice to the non-moving parties; (2) the
hardship and inequity to the moving party if the action is
not stayed; and (3) the judicial resources that would be
saved.” In re Micron Tech., Inc. Secs. Litig.,
No. CV-06-085-S-BLW, 2009 WL 10678270, at *2 (D. Idaho Dec.
Prejudice to Melaleuca
must make “an initial showing that there is a fair
possibility that [it] will be injured by a stay.”
Id. at *3. Melaleuca argues that it easily satisfies
this burden because:
By the time the stay is lifted-which could be more than a
year from now-the harm will already be done, and will be
impossible to remedy. Mr. Kot will be entrenched at Shaklee;
Melaleuca's employees and Marketing Executives may be
substantially poached; and Shaklee may already have taken
advantage of Melaleuca's confidential information. . . .
Shaklee's continued employment of Mr. Kot in violation of
his non-compete obligations poses an ongoing threat of
substantial and irreparable harm to Plaintiffs' business.
Dkt. 87, at 7-8.
argument, however, appears to rest primarily on speculation.
Melaleuca has previously asserted that “most of the
damage to the former company is often done within a period of
a few months. By far the largest numbers of customers and/or
independent marketing representatives tend to leave in the
first onslaught.” Dkt. 39, at 23. Approximately eight
months have now passed since Kot began working for Shaklee.
Yet, Melaleuca has not identified a single employee that
Shaklee has poached in that timespan. Nor has ...